A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Good move. But a better move would be to reduce reliance on LNG all together.
We do that in parallel just takes time.
You can work on both at the same time, but you can't abandon gas from one to the other second
You're talking about a pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate change administration.
I'm only surprised this is something negative for Putin.
I find super funny that they tried to impose sanctions to something we are 100% depending on. And instead of, you know, fixing the problem of dependency, they'll switch to a different dealer.
The dependency was massively reduced just in 2022 post invasion, but you can't just go cold turkey.
There are multiple sources for it and they only sanction one of them.
We didn't really stop importing Russian gas, there's still long-term contracts if e.g. Austria refused to accept Russian gas they'd still have to pay for it. Situation is different with Germany as there Russia broke the contract, stopped deliveries even though Germany was paying, so the country got out of the long-term contract for free.
When it comes to self-sanctioning have a look at Russia sanctioning European food exports. Not that the Faroese would ever complain, of course, they're selling tons of fish to Russia right now who can blame them their yearly GDP is like three patriot batteries.
So, Trump just keeps on winning? How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether? I feel like people are just making one poor choice after the other these days.
It's simply a strategic move to cater to Trump's ego.
It's actually genius. Make Trump look good, tie US closer to Europe while unshackling from Russia.
Appealing to Trump's ego is the only way allies will survive. And if Trump ever leaves office, it's still good news if Dems get back in.
The actual logistical process of getting away from LNG is probably more monumental than is feasible in the near-term.
Appealing to Trump's ego is the only way allies will survive.
Very bold of you to assume that the only way "allies will survive" is by the grace of the US. Shit Americans say.
lmao?
Shit tankies say.
I'm American, but I try not to say shit like that because it's not true.
That in no way precludes one from being a tanky, but let's explore:
God, I can't believe you actually got me defending our own military industrial complex. But hey, I really hope you prove me wrong for their sake.
Yeah, the "me big strong American man" response. What else is new...
Great counterpoint, buddy ;)
Your standpoint is toxic. Doesn't deserve any real consideration.
Lmao of course this is all you've got in response. This is why people don't take you seriously.
Toxic masculinity doesn't deserve a real response. They'll just respond with another caveman answer. Seen it a hundred times before.
How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether?
Already in the works, though for the time being (until fusion) Europe will be dependent on imports for energy and chemical feedstock but in the future that's going to be ammonia (aka transportable hydrogen) from e.g. Canada and Namibia, produced by gigantic amounts of new solar and wind installations.
Also even though fusion is slated to finally arrive in the 2030s (Max Planck is now getting into commercialisation so yes it's serious) it's probably going to be a while before it's price-competetive with renewables from places really suited for renewables, especially when we're not talking raw electricity but stuff that can be transported more easily. So those investments abroad won't be instant write-offs.
Because replacing a heating system with a different one is expensive and a lot of pensioniers can't afford this.
Russia remains second largest exporter I think they mean.